Sneak Attack or Backstab

cbarchuk

Not sure which one to go with. I'm thinking sneak attack for fighter/thieves and backstab for single class thieves. What's everybody else going to do?

CutlassJack

Well I'm a Swashbuckler, so it really doesn't matter.

But if I weren't a swashie I'd go Sneak Attack. Doesn't require all the sneaking and setup of a backstab and you can use it continually in battle. I'd probably only consider Backstab if I were doing an Assassin.

Zyzzogeton

Backstab.

Because Mislead.

But aside from that, Sneak Attack.

JuliusBorisov

I think that everyone should enable Sneak attacks and try them at least once. It's not something we can try and taste in BG.

Although it's hard to beat the feeling of chunking an enemy in one hit with a critical x5 backstabbing

Sceptenar

Sneak attacks are surprisingly good, and combine very well with anything that increases your number of attacks per round (provided you can hit your target of course), and they are much easier to set up and more consistent than a backstab.

Per 3rd edition D&D rules you can also sneak attack with a bow, I don't know if that applies to IWD:EE, but if it does then sneak attack will be far superior to backstab.

elminster

Sceptenar said:

Sneak attacks are surprisingly good, and combine very well with anything that increases your number of attacks per round (provided you can hit your target of course), and they are much easier to set up and more consistent than a backstab.

Per 3rd edition D&D rules you can also sneak attack with a bow, I don't know if that applies to IWD:EE, but if it does then sneak attack will be far superior to backstab.

Assuming of course you can't backstab with a ballista.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4ZeTAfYoY4

Ancalagon44

Sceptenar said:

Sneak attacks are surprisingly good, and combine very well with anything that increases your number of attacks per round (provided you can hit your target of course), and they are much easier to set up and more consistent than a backstab.

Per 3rd edition D&D rules you can also sneak attack with a bow, I don't know if that applies to IWD:EE, but if it does then sneak attack will be far superior to backstab.

But you can only sneak attack a target once, meaning that you need to then reposition your character. So attacks per round does not matter for sneak attack, unless your rogue has a script that makes him attack all adjacent characters instead of just one.

If sneak attack allowed multiple attacks against the same target, I think it would be about as useful as backstab. Backstab is much better because it allows you to eliminate or severely weaken a mage.

Fardragon

Looking at the manual, I see Assassins' sneak attack damage progression is faster than a thief from level 3, whereas their higher backstab multiplier doesn't kick in until level 17.

Ancalagon44

That is interesting.

I also wonder if you can switch between backstab and sneak attack regularly? I mean, it could be a cheesy tactic. Use backstab when you want to kill that pesky mage, and then use sneak attack for higher damage in combat.

EDIT: Also interesting that Shadowdancers can sneak attack from level 1, when they are still unable to backstab.

Macona

Depends on your tactics I suppose.

I'm going to use a Half-Orc Fighter/Thief with 19 Str, so a x5 backstab will do huge damage compared to a few extra d6 from a sneak attack

Spaceman_Spiff

If I remember correctly, you could sneak attack with ranged weapons in NWN.. since that is 3E feature, can we also do that in ID:EE? Would be really cool.

As it is though, it's already quite a neat feature, particularly at the early stages of the game when your thief's hide in shadows and move silently skills won't be very high, making a successful backstab more difficult. I'll probably switch over to backstab once my thief's ninja skills improve.. yeah, a bit cheesy I know

cbarchuk

I finally just looked at the manual and noticed the assassin gets the fastest and highest sneak attack progression. Interesting. Not sure how well the assassin would do with only 1 APR and relatively poor THACO. I guess you could still start off in stealth.

Fardragon

I'm thinking Assassin duel class to fighter at level 8. Thus getting evasion and +3d6 sneak attack.

Cedeos

As far as I know, sneak attack in IWD only applies to the weapons which you can backstab with, i.e. melee weapons a single class thief can use. Have not tested this though.
Would have made the cleric/thief so much more attractive!

Ancalagon44

Well, you can backstab with a cleric/thief, but you can only do so with a quarterstaff or club. Apparently the best backstabbing weapon in BG1 was actually a quarterstaff which could do a ridiculous amount of damage. I think it was the Staff of Striking.

Sceptenar

Strange that. You'd think a warhammer to the back of the head would be pretty effective.

CutlassJack

Sceptenar said:

Strange that. You'd think a warhammer to the back of the head would be pretty effective.

There's a reason that got dropped in 3rd Edition.

Jarrakul

I'd actually argue that sneak attack would be better for single-classed thieves, whereas backstab would be better for fighter/thieves. This is basically because when your damage is higher, multipliers help more. When your damage is lower, you're better off with extra dice. Sneak attack also gives the thief something to do when they aren't stealthed, whereas the fighter/thief has no difficulty contributing in such situations.

bob_veng

i think it would have been fine if the game gave you both options in-game - instead of just a checkbox in the menu

smeagolheart

is crippling strike in the game? If not it should be, you need crippling strike if you have sneak attack. It should be an upgrade possibly only for assassin or whatever.

Prerequisite: rogue (2E=Thief) 10

Specifics: The rogue deals an additional 2 points of ability score strength damage when he makes a successful sneak attack.

So your 18 str fighter thief does an extra +4 damage on sneak attacks at Level 10 on top of whatever the d6 progression is normally.

You won't miss backstab which is kinda cheesy one note thing you have to set up if you can get an always active (except against immune foes) massive damage bonus.

CutlassJack

smeagolheart said:

is crippling strike in the game?

Crippling strike is for all rogues (and Stalkers). It provides scaling debuffs on the target (penalties to hit/damage) based on level.

Schneidend

Sneak Attack is my option of choice. But, then, outside of BG I have very little AD&D experience. I mostly play 3E, Pathfinder, and 4E, which all use some form of Sneak Attack. The idea that a Rogue is useless in melee combat is just...abhorrent to me.

GamingFreak

I love the idea of sneak attacks; as NWN2 sneak attacks made rogues like Neeshka so attractive; you didn't have to go to stealth, assume the position, click on the enemy and then wait until your guy either hit with the backstab or failed due to being uncovered from stealth. No, you just had to walk around the distracted enemy and hit them in the back while the tank of your group was busy hitting him from the front.

Like, backstabs are extremely nice in BG1 and BG2, but pulling them off consistently is a righteous pain in the ass; one of the reasons why people like Fighter/Thieves and Stalkers to begin with; you didn't have to try to go for another backstab because YOU COULD ACTUALLY FIGHT.

Lord_Tansheron

I prefer Sneak Attack for the simple reason that you tend to face HUGE enemy packs in IWD, and that means you very likely can backstab once, but SA a whole bunch of times. If you SA x times where x is your BS multiplier, that roughly puts you at par for damage - and most of the time you'll hit more often than that with SA.

Obviously this changes in scenarios where you DO get to BS multiple times, i.e. if you have a Shadowdancer or feel like cheesing Mislead (I thought they fixed that in EE? Haven't tested myself...).

Crippling Strikes is cool, but really just icing on the cake.